It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

I have a question?

page: 3
4
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:20 AM

You are saying that light is equivalent to 0 acceleration, then in that context explain why a person traveling at some percentage below that speed experiences time dilation (in essence accelerates temporally)?

Any thoughts?

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:24 AM

Kashai

You are saying that light is equivalent to 0 acceleration, then in that context explain why a person traveling at some percentage below that speed experiences time dilation (in essence accelerates temporally)?

Any thoughts?

Light is not equivalent to acceleration at all.

It does not accelerate. It is the speed it is.

Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. In order to have a value for acceleration, you have to have a change of velocity. in vacuum, light does not have any velocity changes. Therefore its acceleration is zero.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:36 AM
Considering that time itself is a man made measurement concept of linear distance, and that we have barely scratched the surface of quantum physics as it has many applicable properties that could be applied to such (on paper), the idea while improbable is certainly possible, just not at this stage of human understanding of the universe. Which would be needed to formulate the tech needed to produce such results.

Hypothetically speaking of course

Generally we just haven't gotten that far in human understanding.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:45 AM

But in respect to the development of a vessel that can travel near c there would be an acceleration to that speed.

Say for example one is looking at a rotating black hole that is fed by a Red Giant Star. In relation to energy absorbed vs. energy dissipated, what would be the maximum rate of rotation? In such a case could a well fed supermassive black hole actually exceed a rotational speed greater than 1/2 that of light?

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 02:09 AM

Kashai

But in respect to the development of a vessel that can travel near c there would be an acceleration to that speed.

True, but you can't ask if something is faster than the acceleration of light, because it's like asking if something is bluer than the whichness of what.

Say for example one is looking at a rotating black hole that is fed by a Red Giant Star. In relation to energy absorbed vs. energy dissipated, what would be the maximum rate of rotation? In such a case could a well fed supermassive black hole actually exceed a rotational speed greater than 1/2 that of light?

The maximum rate of rotation of a fictionally defined object would be reached when the outer circumference approached the speed of light.

The maximum rate of rotation of a real object is going to be limited by the mechanical properties of the object. Fast enough, and it flies to pieces. Conversely, an infinitely rigid object (back to engineering fiction) can't rotate at all. If you had an infinitely rigid disk, you could detect the absolute rotation of the universe.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 02:39 AM

Bedlam

Kashai

But in respect to the development of a vessel that can travel near c there would be an acceleration to that speed.

True, but you can't ask if something is faster than the acceleration of light, because it's like asking if something is bluer than the whichness of what.

Say for example one is looking at a rotating black hole that is fed by a Red Giant Star. In relation to energy absorbed vs. energy dissipated, what would be the maximum rate of rotation? In such a case could a well fed supermassive black hole actually exceed a rotational speed greater than 1/2 that of light?

The maximum rate of rotation of a fictionally defined object would be reached when the outer circumference approached the speed of light.

The maximum rate of rotation of a real object is going to be limited by the mechanical properties of the object. Fast enough, and it flies to pieces. Conversely, an infinitely rigid object (back to engineering fiction) can't rotate at all. If you had an infinitely rigid disk, you could detect the absolute rotation of the universe.

Are you implying that a black hole could act as an edge??

If one reaches the speed of light then one reaches infinite density. Are you suggesting a large star (say one who's mass exceeds the orbit of Mars) in an implosion achieves infinite density???
edit on 15-11-2013 by Kashai because: Added content

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 02:55 AM

Kashai

Are you implying that a black hole could act as an edge??

A black hole has a diameter. Its radius may be undefined...

If one reaches the speed of light then one reaches infinite density. Are you suggesting a large star (say one who's mass exceeds the orbit of Mars) in an implosion achieves infinite density???

That depends on the frame of reference. At any rate you can't reach the speed of light in a vacuum.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 02:58 AM

So you are saying that black holes cannot achieve infinite density? Potentially then how close could they come?

Again I am simply asking a question?
edit on 15-11-2013 by Kashai because: Added content

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 03:24 AM
How could a photon traveling at the speed of light be influenced by a black hole if the force generated by it was not the result of infinite density?

Again perhaps I am being totally ignorant, please educate me.

Any thoughts?

edit on 15-11-2013 by Kashai because: Added content

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 03:30 AM

Kashai

So you are saying that black holes cannot achieve infinite density? Potentially then how close could they come?

Again I am simply asking a question?

They could come as close to having infinite density as they can come close to having zero volume or infinite mass. It's a factor of both.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 03:32 AM

Kashai
How could a photon traveling at the speed of light be influenced by a black hole if the force generated by it was not the result of infinite density?

Light has a finite speed. When your escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, light will never be able to leave. The old fashioned Newtonian calculation for this gives you numbers that aren't all that far off as a first approximation.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 03:35 AM

Ok in context the reason a photon bends and enters a black hole, could be considered a reason to present that a photon does not actually achieve the speed of light?

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 03:43 AM

Kashai

Ok in context the reason a photon bends and enters a black hole, could be considered a reason to present that a photon does not actually achieve the speed of light?

Why?

You can, in point of fact, have a singularity that's nothing but photons, according to Wheeler. Although the current energy density of the universe probably precludes making any new ones, unless you're a type IV civilization.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 03:55 AM

Bedlam

Kashai

Ok in context the reason a photon bends and enters a black hole, could be considered a reason to present that a photon does not actually achieve the speed of light?

Why?

You can, in point of fact, have a singularity that's nothing but photons, according to Wheeler. Although the current energy density of the universe probably precludes making any new ones, unless you're a type IV civilization.

Because a photon traveling at the speed of light, if it had any mass, that mass is in infinite density. So the only object that could affect it to the degree that a black holes could be defined (hypothetically) as having a degree of density in excess of that of the photon. Further Wheeler presentation of a singularity made of nothing but photons implies spagetification of mass to nothing but photons.

So what is it we are made of???

Any thoughts?

edit on 15-11-2013 by Kashai because: Added content and edit

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 04:17 AM

Kashai

Because a photon traveling at the speed of light, if it had any mass, that mass is in infinite density.

Nope. A photon has no rest mass. It has a tiny bit of relativistic mass, which will cause mbkennel to spit at me for being not quite accurate, seeing that that doesn't hold for photons, technically. The correct answer for that one is actually in the stress-energy tensor but that, as they say, is not within the scope of this discussion.

Further Wheeler presentation of a singularity made of nothing but photons implies spagetification of mass to nothing but photons.

Well, not really, it's another stress-energy tensor thing. To get a kugelblitz, you not only have to have enough photons, you have to line them up just right...

So what is it we are made of???

Well, at one time, I was made of snips, and snails, and puppy dog tails, but that was more than 40 years ago.

Then I went through the stage where I was all hair and meat and big stinky feet, but now I'm stardust, I'm golden, I'm billion year old carbon, and no one can stop me now, 'cause we are all made of stars.

What I'm NOT made of is photons.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 06:01 AM

Kashai

Exactly

As in do you know why GPS in cars work?

Any thoughts?
edit on 14-11-2013 by Kashai because: Added content

Sorry this is a dumb question, but exactly why do they need to do relativistic corrections for GPS? Isn't a GPS satellite in orbit moving very fast (so its time slows down relative to observer on the ground) but it is also further away from earth's center of gravity (so time on the ground would go slower). Wouldn't these two effects cancel out for an orbiting object? Thank you.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 08:10 AM

You ever seen blood in a tube and put into one of those spinning things? It separates the blood and stuff right or mix masters it? I would assume that if you did this at 99.99999% at the speed of light you would make a dead human. That's it. Dead blood everywhere. Dead...

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 03:37 PM

Actually, when it comes to Relativity the effect while very small is also apparent in relation to passenger airplanes.

www.sciences360.com...

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 09:50 PM

Wouldn't these two effects cancel out for an orbiting object? Thank you.

Not quite. Here is a brief overview, somewhere I have a link to a really nasty analysis with lots of math that goes into the nuts and bolts if you'd like. But it's hard to follow.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 10:38 PM

IF a photon has zero rest mass your explanation makes a photon more like a train on tracts (with gravity as the tracts).

You seem to suggest that any mass in a photon would not achieve infinite density? What happens to mass in a matter/antimatter interactions?

What is left?

Use a particle collider what is left?

A matter/antimatter reaction can also be termed as a matter/antimatter collision, in a collider.

By the way puppy dog tails are also made of carbon, and star stuff relates to photons.

Any thoughts?

edit on 15-11-2013 by Kashai because: Added content

top topics

4